6 ms·

UBI would just socialize the cost which at least now, the private sector partly pays. UBI is a yearly recurring expense in the trillions. Lots of people would

UBI would just socialize the cost which at least now, the private sector partly pays. UBI is a yearly recurring expense in the trillions. Lots of people would work less, (remember COVID?) lowering tax revenue. This means higher demand for workers, who will require even higher pay because of supply constraints and high taxes. Unlocked demand, decreased labor supply and higher taxes means inflation. Lots of inflation, specially in services. Businesses will offshore or automate to try and reduce cost, but that will push even more workers onto UBI. What will the new equilibrium be? Nobody knows. It could stabilize with extreme income inequality creating a permanent underclass, It could drive the United States into hyperinflation, creating civil unrest and destabilizing world security. Nobody knows. It would be a society wide experiment that would be politically impossible to undo democratically. If you think BS jobs are bad, how about no jobs in a bankrupt United States, sliding into Venezuelan hyper inflation? Imagine China, Russia, and North Korea undeterred and the death and human suffering that would follow. The US may not be perfect, but the world is a harsh harsh place and people have no idea how good they have it right here, right now. So good that professionals not only demand high pay from their employers, but think it's totally reasonable to require "meaning" as well. Were he still alive, I would pay good money to see the author try and read his essay out loud to Victor Frankel.

imtringued 4y ago
Ok, but that just means the UBI will be very small. Nothing you said goes against the concept.
- francob411 4y ago
  Lol, wow.
pwinnski 4y ago
I just experienced something like a flashback, I was in debate club, listening to yet another kid claim that social change X would lead inevitably to global nuclear annihilation. Strongest case possible, right? We can't possibly re-allocate the trillions of dollars the federal government spends, or the more trillions the collective states spend, because it would lead inevitably to mass die-offs comparable to soviet-era famine conditions. Existing UBI programs don't directionally move that way? Pandemic productivity actually rose, despite a couple of quarters of setbacks? The actual evidence doesn't support gloom and doom? Just make the claims of potential harm bigger! Nobody can counter hyperinflation, civil unrest, or world war!
- htrp 4y ago
  Debate clubs always lead to global thermonuclear war.
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  >Pandemic productivity actually rose, despite a couple of quarters of setbacks? Covid did not create Universal Basic Income. Everyone knew that Covid money will run out, so most people didn't quit their jobs (although still many did, which was GP's point). Also, the amount of debt raised during covid was no joke, and we don't know the long term effects. But even disregarding that last point Covid isn't a useful datapoint for disproving GP's claim. The fundamental issue is with UBI is people will not want to work and that is GP's central claim.
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    So GP using involuntary unemployment numbers in support of an anti-UBI case didn't trigger your alarm, but me using voluntary employment numbers to demonstrate the falsity of the original claim did? If Covid isn't a useful datapoint for disproving GP's hysterical claims, then it definitely isn't a useful datapoint for supporting them. The number of people who quit their jobs to depend on "Covid money" rounds down to zero. There just wasn't enough "Covid money" for that. Many people were unemployed during the early days of the pandemic, but not voluntarily. Your "fundamental issue" lacks evidence and the counter-evidence from limited trials of UBI points the other way. But carry on. Civil unrest and a world war await.
    - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
      >So GP using involuntary unemployment numbers in support of an anti-UBI case didn't trigger your alarm Obviously, becasue the cause is unemployment, not whether it is voluntary or not. >but me using voluntary employment numbers to demonstrate the falsity of the original claim did? Yes, because it is a logical error, as I explained above. >Your "fundamental issue" lacks evidence The evidence is that most people don't like working. I've never met anyone who went to work on a day off; I've seen countless people to get out of it. >counter-evidence from limited trials of UBI points the other way. They are as you say: limited. We would only see the effects after UBI becomes "a thing" that allows people to slack off, not a trial. And then children won't take eduaction seriously as there is no more carrot.
throwaway6734 4y ago
>The US may not be perfect, but the world is a harsh harsh place and people have no idea how good they have it right here, right now. Amen.
epups 4y ago
That's a very slippery slope you got there! A slightly different version of the arguments you write here could have been made against pensions or a 40h work week when they were introduced. I'm not saying UBI would not massively change society and potentially include risks, I am just questioning your certainty that implementing it would lead to disaster. Oh, and it's Viktor Frankl by the way.
geysersam 4y ago
Costs don't disappear just because it's the private sector that has them. On the national economic level, waste is waste. But I agree that with UBI people who have actually important jobs might also quit, or demand higher salaries. Some would say that sounds fair and sensible compared to the current status quo. About software development specifically: Note how many of the most valuable software projects have grown not from profit driven corporations, but from open source maintainers working in their spare time.
ikrenji 4y ago
this is actually not supported by any data. its pure speculation. plus the handful of UBI trials don't show the catastrophic breakdown of labor supply you claim to inevitably happen... the reality is until a proper ubi trial is done with actually livable wage we don't know what would happen...
r00fus 4y ago
A lot of your reasoning requires a big [cite needed] - specifically the "lots of people would work less". UBI pilot programs have proved the opposite. Also several states cut unemployment benefits to goose their active worker numbers and the opposite happened - less people working. I'm not saying that nationwide UBI would be a good thing but your logic isn't clear.
soiler 4y ago
> It could stabilize with extreme income inequality creating a permanent underclass That should would be a frightening and radical departure from today.

imtringued 4y ago

Ok, but that just means the UBI will be very small. Nothing you said goes against the concept.

francob411 4y ago
Lol, wow.

pwinnski 4y ago

I just experienced something like a flashback, I was in debate club, listening to yet another kid claim that social change X would lead inevitably to global nuclear annihilation. Strongest case possible, right? We can't possibly re-allocate the trillions of dollars the federal government spends, or the more trillions the collective states spend, because it would lead inevitably to mass die-offs comparable to soviet-era famine conditions. Existing UBI programs don't directionally move that way? Pandemic productivity actually rose, despite a couple of quarters of setbacks? The actual evidence doesn't support gloom and doom? Just make the claims of potential harm bigger! Nobody can counter hyperinflation, civil unrest, or world war!

htrp 4y ago
Debate clubs always lead to global thermonuclear war.
Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
>Pandemic productivity actually rose, despite a couple of quarters of setbacks? Covid did not create Universal Basic Income. Everyone knew that Covid money will run out, so most people didn't quit their jobs (although still many did, which was GP's point). Also, the amount of debt raised during covid was no joke, and we don't know the long term effects. But even disregarding that last point Covid isn't a useful datapoint for disproving GP's claim. The fundamental issue is with UBI is people will not want to work and that is GP's central claim.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  So GP using involuntary unemployment numbers in support of an anti-UBI case didn't trigger your alarm, but me using voluntary employment numbers to demonstrate the falsity of the original claim did? If Covid isn't a useful datapoint for disproving GP's hysterical claims, then it definitely isn't a useful datapoint for supporting them. The number of people who quit their jobs to depend on "Covid money" rounds down to zero. There just wasn't enough "Covid money" for that. Many people were unemployed during the early days of the pandemic, but not voluntarily. Your "fundamental issue" lacks evidence and the counter-evidence from limited trials of UBI points the other way. But carry on. Civil unrest and a world war await.
  - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
    >So GP using involuntary unemployment numbers in support of an anti-UBI case didn't trigger your alarm Obviously, becasue the cause is unemployment, not whether it is voluntary or not. >but me using voluntary employment numbers to demonstrate the falsity of the original claim did? Yes, because it is a logical error, as I explained above. >Your "fundamental issue" lacks evidence The evidence is that most people don't like working. I've never met anyone who went to work on a day off; I've seen countless people to get out of it. >counter-evidence from limited trials of UBI points the other way. They are as you say: limited. We would only see the effects after UBI becomes "a thing" that allows people to slack off, not a trial. And then children won't take eduaction seriously as there is no more carrot.

throwaway6734 4y ago

>The US may not be perfect, but the world is a harsh harsh place and people have no idea how good they have it right here, right now. Amen.

epups 4y ago

That's a very slippery slope you got there! A slightly different version of the arguments you write here could have been made against pensions or a 40h work week when they were introduced. I'm not saying UBI would not massively change society and potentially include risks, I am just questioning your certainty that implementing it would lead to disaster. Oh, and it's Viktor Frankl by the way.

geysersam 4y ago

Costs don't disappear just because it's the private sector that has them. On the national economic level, waste is waste. But I agree that with UBI people who have actually important jobs might also quit, or demand higher salaries. Some would say that sounds fair and sensible compared to the current status quo. About software development specifically: Note how many of the most valuable software projects have grown not from profit driven corporations, but from open source maintainers working in their spare time.

ikrenji 4y ago

this is actually not supported by any data. its pure speculation. plus the handful of UBI trials don't show the catastrophic breakdown of labor supply you claim to inevitably happen... the reality is until a proper ubi trial is done with actually livable wage we don't know what would happen...

r00fus 4y ago

A lot of your reasoning requires a big [cite needed] - specifically the "lots of people would work less". UBI pilot programs have proved the opposite. Also several states cut unemployment benefits to goose their active worker numbers and the opposite happened - less people working. I'm not saying that nationwide UBI would be a good thing but your logic isn't clear.

soiler 4y ago

> It could stabilize with extreme income inequality creating a permanent underclass That should would be a frightening and radical departure from today.